Support stance in carers of adults with eating disorders: Factors associated with collaborative versus directive approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The support provided by family and friends is integral to patient motivation and clinical outcomes across health care populations. However, little is known about factors that promote or interfere with the type of support offered. OBJECTIVE: This research examined factors associated with collaborative versus directive support among carers of adults with eating disorders. METHOD: Participants were mothers, fathers, partners, friends, and siblings (N = 141) of eating disorder patients in hospital or residential treatment. Two methodologies were used to assess directive and collaborative support stance: a questionnaire of support behaviors and coded responses to clinical vignettes. Measures of interpersonal functioning, psychiatric distress, caregiving experience, and closeness with their loved one were also completed. RESULTS: Although carers rated a collaborative stance as more helpful than a directive stance, 60% of responses to the clinical vignettes were directive. Across both methodologies, collaborative support behaviors were associated with beliefs about helpful support and with a less vindictive and cold interpersonal style. Whereas use of a directive support stance was exclusively associated with negative caregiving experiences, collaborative responses were associated with both positive and negative experiences. DISCUSSION: Although the benefits of collaborative support have been well established, this is the first study to examine factors associated with the use of support stance. Findings suggest a number of ways to help carers create and maintain collaborative relationships, including addressing beliefs and interpersonal style and capitalizing on both positive and negative experiences with their loved one. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.(Int J Eat Disord 2017; 50:498-505).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".